Ten California cities and counties have announced a $60 million settlement with one of three paint companies on the hook for cleaning up lead paint hazards in older houses.

The agreement announced Wednesday resolves part of an 18-year-old lawsuit filed against the three companies by Santa Clara County in Superior Court in 2000.

Other counties and cities that later joined the lawsuit and are participating in the settlement are the counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Solano and Ventura and the cities of San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego.

The settlement was reached with NL Industries Inc., formerly known as National Lead Co.

The other two companies still in the case are Sherwin-Williams Co. and ConAgra Grocery Products Co., which took over the former Fuller paint company.

The agreement applies to abatement of interior paint in houses built in the 10 cities and counties before 1951.

In 2014, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that the three companies created a public nuisance by promoting the use of lead-based paint while knowing that lead dust was harmful to children.

Kleinberg originally ordered the paint firms to pay $1.15 billion to abate lead hazards in an estimated 3.5 million homes built before 1980 in the 10 jurisdictions.

But last year, a state Court of Appeal panel narrowed the verdict to houses built before 1951.

The appeals court upheld Kleinberg's finding of public nuisance, but said the mandate should apply only to the older houses because there was no evidence the companies advertised the use of lead-based paint, as opposed to paint in general, after 1951.

The case against the other two companies remains pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court for a determination of how much funding is needed to address lead paint hazards in pre-1951 houses in the 10 jurisdictions.

The Santa Clara County counsel's office has estimated the remaining amount needed for the pre-1951 houses at $670 million.

Exposure to lead in deteriorated paint dust and chips can cause brain damage, learning disabilities, lowered IQ scores, slowed growth and kidney damage in children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control concluded in 2012, "no safe blood lead level in children has been identified."

Lead-based paint was banned in the United States in 1978.

As part of the settlement, NL Industries also agreed to withdraw support from a proposed November ballot initiative that would declare that lead paint in homes is not a public nuisance and that paint companies are not liable.

The initiative would authorize $3.9 billion in taxpayer-paid state bonds to finance the remediation of lead paint and other environmental hazards in homes and schools throughout the state.

The other two paint companies remaining in the case are supporting the measure, according to the cities' and counties' announcement.

The settlement must be found by the Superior Court to have been made in good faith before it becomes final.

Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams said, "For nearly two decades, we have been fighting to protect vulnerable young children from the very serious harms caused by lead paint.

"We are pleased that NL has decided to resolve this matter and that millions of dollars can now go to address the harms to children resulting from toxic lead paint in homes," Williams said in a statement.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called lead paint "a public health crisis" and stated, "This agreement ensures that significant resources go to address that crisis and protect children from this toxic environmental hazard."

NL Industries lawyer Andre Pauka said that in reaching the settlement, the company does not agree to the allegations in the case.

"Although NL does not agree with the ruling in the courts, and by settling does not admit to any of the claims in the case, NL would prefer that its limited financial resources be used to fund public health programs rather than be spent on continued litigation," the attorney said in a statement.

"Subject to the court's approval, NL will be able to put this litigation behind it and provide funds for the jurisdictions to address lead paint in the manner they believe is most effective to protect health," Pauka said.

Santa Clara County released an additional statement Thursday concerning the remainder of the case.

"We understand that representatives of the Sherwin Williams Co., another defendant in the litigation, are now claiming that this settlement somehow reduces Sherwin Williams's liability to less than $60 million based on Sherwin Williams's relative share of the lead paint market in California. This is false.

"The defendants' liability for public nuisance is unrelated to their relative market share," the county said. "This settlement does not reduce the liability of ConAgra or Sherwin Williams, which both remain responsible for the remaining balance of any judgment-which the (plaintiffs) calculate at $670 million.

"The settlement amount with NL is not a reflection of the company's share of total liability, but rather its ability to pay. Rather than seeking a higher amount that could drive NL into lengthy bankruptcy proceedings and result in pennies on the dollar for remediation, this settlement provides timely, unrestricted funding to clean up the hazards of lead paint and address the harms to children and other vulnerable populations resulting from toxic lead paint in homes," according to the statement.